Since the outbreak of the “Swords of Iron” war, the major powers have brandished their metaphorical swords in the diplomatic arena – including at the UN Security Council, where both are permanent members. Thus, also in the context of the campaign against Iran, China, Pakistan, and Russia were quick to initiate a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, called on the parties to refrain from “adding fuel to the fire,” and official spokespersons from Beijing even added that the American action “violates the principles of the UN Charter and international law.” Chinese President Xi Jinping called on “major countries with special influence on the parties in the conflict” to calm the situation – a statement clearly directed at the United States, which, in Xi’s view, is escalating the situation instead of defusing it.
Interestingly, the United States approached China with a request to use its influence over Iran, with which it maintains extensive relations. For instance, when Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz – through which a significant portion of global trade and 20% of the world’s oil pass – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged China to dissuade Iran from taking such a dramatic step. This appeal indicates that despite the open confrontation, there are also areas where American and Chinese interests converge. Even if China chooses to intervene, it will not be out of a desire to comply with Rubio’s request, but rather because it too relies heavily on the Strait of Hormuz for trade with countries in the region.
The recent escalation between Israel and Iran – and in recent days also between the U.S. and Iran – provides fertile ground for great power confrontation. Yet, as in previous conflicts, the powers also share common interests: preventing further escalation and ensuring the free flow of global trade. Therefore, behind the sharp rhetoric lies each power’s interest in contributing to de-escalation, in order to allow a state of emergency routine that harms them as little as possible. Even if, for the U.S., this means acknowledging China’s growing influence in the Middle East.
Since the outbreak of the “Swords of Iron” war, the major powers have brandished their metaphorical swords in the diplomatic arena – including at the UN Security Council, where both are permanent members. Thus, also in the context of the campaign against Iran, China, Pakistan, and Russia were quick to initiate a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, called on the parties to refrain from “adding fuel to the fire,” and official spokespersons from Beijing even added that the American action “violates the principles of the UN Charter and international law.” Chinese President Xi Jinping called on “major countries with special influence on the parties in the conflict” to calm the situation – a statement clearly directed at the United States, which, in Xi’s view, is escalating the situation instead of defusing it.
Interestingly, the United States approached China with a request to use its influence over Iran, with which it maintains extensive relations. For instance, when Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz – through which a significant portion of global trade and 20% of the world’s oil pass – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged China to dissuade Iran from taking such a dramatic step. This appeal indicates that despite the open confrontation, there are also areas where American and Chinese interests converge. Even if China chooses to intervene, it will not be out of a desire to comply with Rubio’s request, but rather because it too relies heavily on the Strait of Hormuz for trade with countries in the region.
The recent escalation between Israel and Iran – and in recent days also between the U.S. and Iran – provides fertile ground for great power confrontation. Yet, as in previous conflicts, the powers also share common interests: preventing further escalation and ensuring the free flow of global trade. Therefore, behind the sharp rhetoric lies each power’s interest in contributing to de-escalation, in order to allow a state of emergency routine that harms them as little as possible. Even if, for the U.S., this means acknowledging China’s growing influence in the Middle East.